Can 'Hunger Games' survive as Gary Ross officially jumps from sequel?

Last week, I drove to Santa Monica to sit for interviews that may or may not be used on the DVD/Blu-ray release of "The Hunger Games," and part of the interview dealt with the contributions that Gary Ross made to the film.

One of the things that people overlook when talking about Ross leaving the film is that he didn't just direct it. Billy Ray was the first screenwriter on the film, and then Suzanne Collins sat down with Ross and the two of them did the final passes together. Ross has his fingerprints all over that first film, and in addition to helping decide what sort of choices they had to make in adapting it from page to screen, he also put together the cast. As much as anyone, he's got to be credited with helping Jennifer Lawrence define her interpretation of Katniss Everdeen, which seems to be the one thing even the film's strongest detractors agree works in this first film.

Now there's the official word that Gary Ross is off of "Catching Fire," and so the first topic of conversation becomes "Who do you hire to direct it?" More than that, though, I think there's an important question here for filmmakers who might get into the franchise business with Lionsgate/Summit in the future. Based on the way they've handled business on the "Twilight" series and the decision they've made to move forward without Ross on this series, why would anyone ever expect to direct more than one film in a successful franchise for them again?

To be fair, the statement that Ross released seems to me to be incredibly warm and points out how important Nina Jacobson was as producer, and how much he enjoyed the experience on the film, and he talks about having a great deal of freedom on it. And I buy that. That film does not feel like it was stamped out of a cookie cutter mold. There are choices he made that I think almost no one else would have done the same way. Not better. Not worse. Just different than choices any typical pick for the film might have been. Sometimes it's great to bring in someone who isn't the immediate choice. Of course, with your release date coming a year from November, and with the expectations that are going to rest on the second film, that's a pressure cooker.

And we talked to Ross before the film opened, and he certainly seemed invested:

It's one thing when you create a property like "Star Wars" and you know you're going to be calling the shots. Nobody was replacing Jo Rowling on "Harry Potter," and you can be damn sure no one's replacing Suzanne Collins on "Hunger Games." One word from her in public and the fanbase would take to the streets. If Ross is leaving, Collins is going to have to find someone she can work with in the same way, so my guess is they'll have to bring in either a writer/director or a very writer-friendly director, someone who Collins will have some common language with.

When people throw around names like Kathryn Bigelow, that sounds great, and I'm sure she'd crush it, but I doubt she's stepping into a situation where she gives up as much control as anyone would have to in this case. After all, most of the key roles are already cast, so you aren't really putting your people together. And the look of the world and the Games is already established, so you can't just reinvent it wholesale. And the script is in progress now, so choices are being made that you're not part of. It's a tough gig to step into.

I'm guessing a few points on the box-office gross and home video will more than make up for that sting, though, the same way it has for everyone on the "Twilight" series. I think Summit showed exceptional taste in the filmmakers they hired for that series of films, and there's nothing sarcastic or less than sincere about that statement. Catherine Hardwicke? David Slade? Chris Weitz? Bill Condon? That's a damn fine list of people whose work I enjoy, and who I think will all go on to do more interesting work in the future, using the financial security they've earned as freedom to develop things they care about. We saw Weitz cash in his commercial success on the deeply personal "A Better Life," and Slade's used his new-found buzz to jump into the big studio movies he's absolutely suited to make. Condon's still got one more to deliver, but I'm guessing whatever he does after "Breaking Dawn" is all wrapped up is going to be something that speaks to him as an artist again, and for that reason alone, I'm glad "Twilight" exists.

But on this one, it's the timing and the circumstance that is tough for whoever follows Ross. This story has played out in a semi-public way, with a fair amount of contradictory reporting going on in various places, some people claiming things were happening, other people disputing it. Typical negotiation in public, and I think the majority of the film's fans seem to want Ross to return. There's some anxiety already expressing itself, and there's a potential fan-trum brewing.

It's up to Lionsgate/Summit to figure this out and make the right next move. They've got to land the right person. They've got to bring someone in who can hit the ground running, who has relationships already in place that might serve them well here. Since Simon Beaufoy is writing the script, why not bring on Danny Boyle? He's a great visual storyteller, an impressive stylist, and a bit of a chameleon. He's good with actors, and he's certainly got more than enough pedigree to keep fans calm.

That's just one possibility, of course, and we've got more names to consider that will be up in the morning. Of course we'll be watching this story closely and doing our own legwork to see what perspective we can add to it.

For now, I'm sorry to see Ross go, but I don't think it's the end of the franchise. I think he did exactly what Chris Columbus did for Harry Potter, and it's something they deserve huge respect for. They set the template. They cast the right combination of people. They established that it COULD work. Even if they don't end up having made the best of the series (and who knows what the next films will end up being), they made the most important ones, and they pulled off what many, many other very good filmmakers have not been able to do. There are far more failed series than successful ones, and it's more than just luck.
"Catching Fire" is still currently scheduled to be released November 22, 2013.

A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

I really hope your right on this one Drew. I thoroughly enjoyed the first film and hope the franchise stays consistent with its quality. Tis a shame though that a deal couldn't be worked out with Ross. I only hope whoever takes it over has as much passion invested into the story and characters as Ross did.

I assume you're questioning the creative survival of the series and not its box office potential, right? Because even if they replace Ross with some hack who totally drops the ball, I'm pretty sure Catching Fire will still gross a kabillion dollars.

Funny how this story talks about what a great job he did and how his casting of Jennifer Lawrence was dead on. Everyone I know that read the book said the casting of Peeda and that bad dye job was horrible and pretty much ruined the movie for them.

So you haven't actually read the book?? I've read the book and Peeta, not peeda was carted excellently. And if your referring to the dye job as in the people in the capitol Suzanne Collins, in the book, says how the people dye their skin and hair odd colors. So I believe Ross did an excellent job

Wrong in my book, BP. I read the books, and Hutcherson is a fantastic Peeta. I didn't have any more trouble with his hair being bleached blond than with Jennifer's being dyed brown. The only problems with him in the movie had to do with his character development getting watered down by the script and the fast pace of the film. A better script and different director might help that. He and Jennifer Lawrence have amazing chemistry in real-life interviews. Some shallow people get hung up on the fact that he's a little shorter than Jennifer, but that's just silly to me. He embodies Peeta's personality in the film; I just wish they had written in more of his character's humor and cleverness. There were perfectly good lines in the book that would have added so much to Peeta's characterization in a short amount of time.

Does ANYONE honestly think the choice of director will matter to the box office take? Every Twilight movie had a different filmmaker, and it didn't matter at all. Considering the shakey-cam nightmare of the first, I'm actually *glad* Ross won't be back.

I'd like to see them push this back to Summer 2014 -- take the time to get the script (maybe even get Ross back in the fold) and lens it when Jennifer is done with X-Men. An additional seven month wait is just going to make the fan base even more rabid with anticipation.

I am sure the sequels can be successful. That said, I am always a little surprised they do not try harder to keep the original directors and crew together. To quote the article:

"Ross has his fingerprints all over that first film, and in addition to helping decide what sort of choices they had to make in adapting it from page to screen, he also put together the cast."

If that is the case, why mess with that? Sure, you are just about guaranteed to make money off the sequels. However, if the product is better (and keeping the heart of the creative team intact, especially the guy who "had his fingerprints" all over the first movie, would be a big step in preserving that lightning in a bottle), wouldn't it make MORE money? Not to mention the fringe benefits, like an overall better quality series of films, awards which lead to more revenue, a sense of pride, loyalty. etc.?

This is Hollywood, so those things might not matter as much. It is still disappointing that somebody can come in, do an incredible job, and still not be guaranteed a job. This is like winning the Super Bowl and the team letting your contract expire.

I hate that so many people are so quick to write off Gary Ross's responsibility for the success of the movie. Like it was going to be a blockbuster no matter what. Really? Well, Eragon, The Golden Compass, and The Seeker: The Dark is Rising are on the phone and they want to know where THEIR half-billion box office receipts are. Just because a book is huge doesn't mean the movie will be. And Ross developed the film from the beginning; he wasn't hastily brought on as a hired gun to direct traffic.

But he probably made the smart choice, for himself at least. Anyone who's read Catching Fire knows that it is nowhere near as cinematic as the first book, so it's going to take a lot of finessing to get a crowd-pleasing film out of it (especially one that doesn't piss off the die-hard book fans too much). Trying to do all that in time for an impending release date would make anyone's hair fall out. Frankly, they're probably going to have to bring in someone who doesn't care much about the property and is willing to shoot whatever's currently on the page (a la Brett Ratner for X-Men 3).

Right. The idea that these franchises are "director-proof" doesn't really add up, because they aren't. And it seems that if the director does well and everyone sees their movie, their reward is that they become more dispensable. What kind of a deal is that? Fortunately, Ross probably will go on to do more interesting things, but who would want to fill his shoes?

I'm fairly certain Boyle is directing the 2012 Olympics and will be wrapped up for the better part of the year. He also has a film he has shot and hasn't had time to edit yet. He's an interesting choice, but I'd rather see him doing something else. I honestly think a guy like Paul Haggis is a wise choice. He can be edgy, but he also doesn't mind dealing with larger themes in a somewhat hammy way. Which, let's face it, the material requires.